Bill deals with U. S. Supreme Court wetlands case

A bill arising from a Florida wetlands case that was decided in the U. S. Supreme Court has been filed in advance of the 2015 Legislative Session.

The Supreme Court in 2013 overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling against the late Coy A. Koontz Sr., who sought to build on 3.7 of his 15 acres in Orange County.

The St. Johns River Water Management District told Koontz in 1994 that he could build if he reduced the development size or paid to restore wetlands on agency property seven miles away. Koontz refused.

The U. S. Supreme Court said previous legal tests of whether a constitutionally prohibited taking of private property occurs applies even when government denies a permit or demands money. Property rights supporters hailed the decision.

Now, HB 383 would provide for property owners to challenge state and local agencies that seek to impose unfair conditions, called “unconstitutional exactions,” during the permitting process.

Rep. Katie Edwards, D-Plantation and bill sponsor, said the bill would provide clarity needed for local governments and property owners resulting from some confusion over the Koontz case.

“We just want to make sure these types of things don’t happen and government agencies and their staff can’t do these types of things,” Edward said. “If they think it (a permit requirement) is necessary, put it in rule-making and put the public on notice these types of things are required for permitting.”

She said the process established in her bill follows procedures provided under in state law under the Bert. J. Harris Private Property Rights Protection Act of 1995. Edwards, an attorney, denied any groups had asked her to file the bill and she became interested when reviewing the Koontz case for a client.

Similar legislation arising from the Koontz case was filed last year. Those bills, HB 1077 and SB 1310, died without being heard in committees.

Property rights supporters said legislation was needed to provide direction to agencies in the wake of the Koontz decision. But others said the legislation could tie the hands of planners and local agencies.

Nancy Stroud, a land-use attorney from Boca Raton, on Wednesday criticized the HB 383 for what she said is confusing language. She also said the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the Koontz case that there there is an unconstitutional exaction under the federal constitution, but not under the state constitution.

HB 383 “expands Koontz beyond what the U. S. Supreme Court held, with a result that state and local taxpayers will be potentially liable to pay for the regulatory conditions to development permits that mitigate the adverse impacts of development,” Stroud said.

Bruce Ritchie (@bruceritchie) covers environment and growth management issues in Tallahassee.